Dharmasthala’s uneasy silence: SIT probe nears a flashpoint

 The air around Dharmasthala is heavy with anticipation. Reports quoting SIT sources have hinted at the clear possibility of reexhuming mortal remains buried there, after several skeletons were discovered with the help of Soujanya’s maternal uncle, Vittal Gowda. If this happens, it could change the trajectory of the Soujanya case and several other murky episodes buried in the shadow of power.

SIT chief Pranab Mohanty’s meeting with Chief Minister Siddaramaiah yesterday has electrified the political climate. Speculation is rife that reexhumation is imminent. This single act has already triggered tremors among three intertwined forces: the so-called D-gang, its patronised media, and the Sangh Parivar, which has repeatedly bent over backwards to shield the gang.

For the BJP and its ideological affiliates, the development is particularly unsettling. Leaders have rushed to dismiss the idea of reexhumation as a “waste of resources,” betraying their deeper fear of exposure. They know well that their carefully staged “Dharmasthala Chalo” campaign in support of the gang would lose all sheen if skeletons—literal and metaphorical—come tumbling out. The danger for them is twofold: their alliance with the D-gang stands naked, and their claim to moral guardianship of society collapses.

The D-gang itself is rattled. Its power has always rested on mystique, patronage, and an unwritten pact of silence. The possibility of exhumations threatens to pierce that shield, raising uncomfortable questions about not just Soujanya but the fate of other missing or silenced women. For a group that thrives on reverence and immunity, forensic evidence could be devastating.

Equally telling is the behaviour of the pro-gang media. This section once went hoarse mocking or maligning protestors seeking justice for Soujanya. Today, it has lapsed into a studied silence. It is not an oversight but a strategy. They are waiting in the wings for a moment—perhaps when SIT actually acts—to reframe the narrative, derail the outrage, or inject communal diversion. Their silence is not neutrality; it is complicity in pause.

For Siddaramaiah, this is a political test. Allowing the SIT to act decisively can project him as a leader willing to stand with victims against entrenched power. Yet it carries risks: the backlash from religious-political lobbies could be fierce. His government must weigh whether justice for Soujanya is worth a confrontation with institutions that wield both faith and influence.

The public, however, is watching keenly. Women’s rights activists, local communities, and ordinary citizens sense that this case has long symbolised the suppression of truth in the name of power and sanctity. If reexhumations take place and evidence emerges, it will not remain a local issue—it will snowball into a state-wide and eventually country-wide reckoning.

At this moment, all eyes are fixed on the SIT. Its next move will decide whether Karnataka finally confronts the truth long buried, or whether once again silence and compromise will prevail. The question is simple yet seismic: will the skeletons of Dharmasthala remain buried, or will they speak?